Hacker News Reader

Comment by bitexploder | Hacker News Reader

Picking a nit: “Lattes are bad for you” come now. No food is inherently “bad”. In moderation or in a balanced diet you can regularly eat some amount of “bad” food and remain perfectly healthy. I do agree they aren’t a health food but I dislike “good” and “bad”. I think healthier and unhealthier is a much better axis for food, and making choices around food.

View on HN

You have it backwards. No food is inherently “good” for you. Most people are better off skipping meals until they absolutely need nutrients. There’s toxins in all food.

Another note: there is no such thing as “toxins” in food. Barring things like heavy metals, and actual poison. You won’t see any research about nutrition and food talk about “toxins” in a context like this.

There's toxins in all air, but we don't hold our breath until we need to breathe...

I mean we kind of do. If everyone breathed like they ate(in the US) there would be people fainting all over the place.

False. Lattes ARE most definitely bad for you when they contain 30-40 grams of sugar or almost 3 TABLESPOONS.[1]

[1] https://www.starbucks.com/menu/product/414/hot?parent=%2Fdri...

You picked a dessert drink.

An actual Latte has less than half the number of carbs as that https://www.starbucks.com/menu/product/407/hot?parent=%2Fdri...

You can also get it with almond milk reduce it by another 1/3

Lattes aren't defined by that specific recipe served at Starbucks.

Surely they are. They are one possible example.

Salads aren’t bad because McDonald’s gives you one with a dressing with 900 calories in it.

And that example has a cinnamon sugar syrup added to it.

That drink is a latte, but a latte isn't that drink. A latte is made with two ingredients: espresso and milk. Anything else is a variation.

I prefer unsweetened lattes. For some reason sweet just clashes with the mouthfeel and flavor to me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com